Human Survival
Human survival or the survival of capitalism?
12/09/08 23:04 Filed in: Social Change | Future
We may have to choose.
To those of you who might be afraid of economics and economic systems, don’t be! They are very simple. All that an economic system does is to make things, consume things and distribute things according to an allocation. That’s all!
Capitalism is equally simple...
“The decadent international but individualistic capitalism ... is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous—and it doesn’t deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed.” — John Maynard Keynes
In a way, that’s a remarkable quotation. Keynes was no revolutionary, but a very conservative and influential economist whose work inspired Western governments in their economic policy for decades, especially in the UK.
But going back to the nature of capitalism: Capitalism’s main characteristics are the accumulation of value, private ownership (of the means of production), production for profit, and hierarchical organisation of the workplace.
I feel much the same about capitalism as did Maynard Keynes. I’m equally perplexed.
I’ve been reading a lot of late about new and emerging theories about economics, politics and social organisation and came across an interesting set of criteria in some material about “participatory economics”. I’m not sure if I could accept all participatory economics’ (parecon for short) theory and ideas but I did like the six values against which these theorists evaluated the effectiveness of various economic systems.
Here they are:
1. Equity, or fair and just outcomes;
2. Caring and mutual respect among all people;
3. Diversity of outcomes which would benefit everyone;
4. Participatory self-management, or having a say in decisions to the extent that one is affected by their outcomes;
5. Efficiency, or not wasting resources;
6. Environmental sustainability.
For me, that is the most sensible and desirable list of criteria for an economic system I have ever seen. But looking at this list, capitalism doesn’t do very well. Let’s see:
• Capitalism generates atomised, self-interested behaviour, not caring and mutual respect among people.
• Capitalism generates inefficiency, since it’s based on individual behaviours.
• Capitalism’s environmental record speaks for itself; it destroys biodiversity.
• Capitalism does not promote self-management, but instead generates a situation where a few make decisions for the many.
• Capitalism does not generate diversity.
• Capitalism’s consumption is characterised by the total neglect of others. Consumers think of only themselves and can ignore the effects of the goods they buy on the environment and on the workers who produced the goods.
I’m not swinging in any political direction here either, since most of the same criticisms can be applied to socialist economic models too.
I’m not so sure about capitalism at all. It’s based on the infinite expansion of consumption. Does that work for you? Try eating more and more, year on year and see where that gets you. It’s an absurd idea I know. Capitalism is as absurd.
The American biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that if the entire world consumes at the same rate as the USA, then we would need four planet earths to sustain mankind now.
Hysterical or common sense? Better believe it’s common sense, since if we don’t address this issue in the twenty first century, there may not be a twenty second.
To those of you who might be afraid of economics and economic systems, don’t be! They are very simple. All that an economic system does is to make things, consume things and distribute things according to an allocation. That’s all!
Capitalism is equally simple...
“The decadent international but individualistic capitalism ... is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous—and it doesn’t deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed.” — John Maynard Keynes
In a way, that’s a remarkable quotation. Keynes was no revolutionary, but a very conservative and influential economist whose work inspired Western governments in their economic policy for decades, especially in the UK.
But going back to the nature of capitalism: Capitalism’s main characteristics are the accumulation of value, private ownership (of the means of production), production for profit, and hierarchical organisation of the workplace.
I feel much the same about capitalism as did Maynard Keynes. I’m equally perplexed.
I’ve been reading a lot of late about new and emerging theories about economics, politics and social organisation and came across an interesting set of criteria in some material about “participatory economics”. I’m not sure if I could accept all participatory economics’ (parecon for short) theory and ideas but I did like the six values against which these theorists evaluated the effectiveness of various economic systems.
Here they are:
1. Equity, or fair and just outcomes;
2. Caring and mutual respect among all people;
3. Diversity of outcomes which would benefit everyone;
4. Participatory self-management, or having a say in decisions to the extent that one is affected by their outcomes;
5. Efficiency, or not wasting resources;
6. Environmental sustainability.
For me, that is the most sensible and desirable list of criteria for an economic system I have ever seen. But looking at this list, capitalism doesn’t do very well. Let’s see:
• Capitalism generates atomised, self-interested behaviour, not caring and mutual respect among people.
• Capitalism generates inefficiency, since it’s based on individual behaviours.
• Capitalism’s environmental record speaks for itself; it destroys biodiversity.
• Capitalism does not promote self-management, but instead generates a situation where a few make decisions for the many.
• Capitalism does not generate diversity.
• Capitalism’s consumption is characterised by the total neglect of others. Consumers think of only themselves and can ignore the effects of the goods they buy on the environment and on the workers who produced the goods.
I’m not swinging in any political direction here either, since most of the same criticisms can be applied to socialist economic models too.
I’m not so sure about capitalism at all. It’s based on the infinite expansion of consumption. Does that work for you? Try eating more and more, year on year and see where that gets you. It’s an absurd idea I know. Capitalism is as absurd.
The American biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that if the entire world consumes at the same rate as the USA, then we would need four planet earths to sustain mankind now.
Hysterical or common sense? Better believe it’s common sense, since if we don’t address this issue in the twenty first century, there may not be a twenty second.
|